Miles-Forde v Green Line Taxi Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Miles-Forde v Green Line Taxi Inc. 2023 NY Slip Op 34208(U) November 17, 2023 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 522300/2020 Judge: Ingrid Joseph Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 04:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 INDEX NO. 522300/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2023 .i I I I I At an IAS lAS Part Part 83 of of the Supreme Court Court of of the Supreme the for and State of of New New York York held held in the State County of of Kings 360 Adams Street, Adams Street, Kings at 360 County (6G- day Brooklyn, New New York, York, on on the 11' r7(~ Brooklyn, of A/olkAtbf\,'2 Alo\kAtW 2023. 023. of PRESENT: : HON. HON. INGRID INGRID JOSEPH, JOSEPH, J.S.C. l.S.C. PRESENT STATE SUPREME COURT COURT OF THE THE STATE OF SUPREME NEW YORK COUNTY COUNTY OF KINGS KINGS NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------X ----------------------------------------------------------------------J( ------------RDE, LORETTAA MILES-FO MILES-FORDE, LORETT Plaintiff( s) Plaintiff(s) -against-against- Index No: 522300/202 522300/20200 Index ORDER ORDER GREEN LINE LINE TAXI TAJ(I INC., INC., HAIBO BAlBO HUANG, HUANG, GREEN TY, and AUTHORI METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, TRANSIT METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, NEW CITY TRANSIT TRANSIT AUTHORITY, YORK CITY NEW YORK Defendant( s) Defendant( ______________________________________________________ ----------------J( ----------------------------------------------------------------------X The following following e-filed e-filed papers papers read read herein: herein: The Annexed Notice of Motion/Petition/Affidavits Motion/Petition/Affidavits Annexed Notice of Exhibits Annexed/Rep Annexed/Replyly ......... ... Exhibits Annexed ........... . Affinnation Opposition/Affidavits Annexed/Exhibits Annexed ffidavits Annexed/Exhibits Affinnation in Opposition/A NYSCEF Nos.: Nos.: NYSCEF 24-30; 41-43 41-43 24-30; 33-34 33-34 Authority York City New York A'') and In this action, Metropolitan Transit Authority ("MT A") and New City Transit Transit Authority Authority ("MT Metropolitan Transit this action, In judgment dismissing ("NYCTA") ) (Collectivel (Collectivelyy "Defendant "Defendants") (Motion Seq. I) 1) for summary summary judgment dismissing move (Motion s") move ("NYCTA" no statutory there is no that there Loretta Miles-Forde Miles-Forde's 's ("Plaintiff') ("Plaintiff') complaint complaint on the ground that statutory or or common common law law the ground Loretta that issues the ground motion on the the motion basis liability of Defendants. Defendants. Plaintiff Plaintiff has opposed opposed the ground that issues of of behalf of ity on behalf basis for Habit vehicle collision motor vehicle material fact are present denial of of the This action action arises arises from from a motor collision motion. This the motion. warranting denial present warranting material fact vehicle. Access-A-Ride vehicle. passenger in an Access-A-Ride that occurred on November 2019, wherein Plaintiff was was a passenger wherein Plaintiff November 5, 2019, that occurred not own, In support support of of its motion, Defendants argue argue that that they they did not own, operate, operate, maintain, maintain, manage, manage, or or motion, Defendants In Vehicle Traffic pursuant to Vehicle that pursuant control the subject motor vehicle on the the date date of of the accident and that Traffic Law Law 388, 388, the accident motor vehicle the subject control vehicle collision motor vehicle the only entities entities who liable for for injuries injuries resulting from a motor collision are the owner owner and and resulting from may be liable who may the only Vehicle the operator operator of of the Defendants submit submit a New State Registration Registration Document Document and and a Vehicle York State New York vehicle. Defendants the vehicle. the was number T804247C plate number bearing license Title Record Expansion form which indicate that license plate T804247C was vehicle bearing that vehicle which indicate Record Expansion Title owned by Green Line Taxi Inc. ("Green ("Green Line Line Taxi") Taxi") and operated operated by Defendant Defendant Haibo Haibo Huang Huang Line Taxi Defendant Green by Defendant owned ("Huang") on date of of the accident. accident. Defendants Defendants also also submit submit an affidavit affidavit of of Ronald Ronald Roberts, Roberts, the the the date on the ("Huang") Principal Administrative the NYCTA who states states that that the the movants movants did not not own own the the subject subject NYCTA who Associate at the Administrative Associate Principal 11 [* 1] 1 of 4 ! ·I I FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 04:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 INDEX NO. 522300/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2023 vehicle. Furthermore, Furthermore, Defendants Defendants argue argue that that neither neither Green Green Line Line Taxi Taxi nor nor Huang Huang were were employed employed by nor vehicle. to drive NYCTA to MTA or permission by MTA not given were not were agents of of MT A or or NYCTA and they given permission or NYCTA drive they were NYCTA and MTA they agents were they transportation used as a transportation that Plaintiff program that the subject subject vehicle. Defendants state state that Plaintiff used Access-a-Ride program the Access-a-Ride that the vehicle. Defendants the service on the date date of of the the accident, accident, is a city city sponsored sponsored program program that that is not not owned owned by the the Defendants. Defendants. service Defendants claim claim that that private private individuals individuals and companies companies that that own own vehicles vehicles apply apply for approval approval by by NYCTA NYCT A Defendants which then then connects connects them them to the the Access-a-Ride Access-a-Ride program program where where the the private private individual individual or company company will which Defendants state vehicles. Defendants their own receive and then dispatch out out their own appropriate appropriate vehicles. state then dispatch request and transportation request receive a transportation used. Therefore, that any direction direction or or supervision supervision as to which which vehicles vehicles are used. Therefore, provide any they do not provide that they Defendants argue argue that that Plaintiff Plaintiff has has failed failed to provide provide admissible admissible evidence evidence to support support claims claims that that Defendants Defendants owned, owned, maintained, maintained, operated, operated, or or controlled controlled the the vehicle vehicle involved involved in the the motor motor vehicle vehicle Defendants collision. collision. that part that testified in part wherein she Miles-Forde wherein opposition, Plaintiff Plaintiff submits submits an EBT EBT of of Plaintiff she testified Plaintiff Miles-Forde In opposition, the Access-A-Ride Access-A-Ride program was disabled disabled on the the date date of of the the accident accident and and that that the because she was program because uses the she uses Access-A-Ride program program provides provides reduced reduced transportation transportation costs costs for individuals individuals with with disabilities. disabilities. Plaintiff Plaintiff Access-A-Ride transportation, from states that that on the the date date of of the the accident accident she reserved reserved a ride or ortransportation, from the the Access-A Access-A RideRidestates Program which which sent sent a contractor-ope contractor-operated vehicle out out to her her home home to pick pick her her up on the the day day of of the rated vehicle Program moving defendants the moving accident. Plaintiff argues that operated by the defendants and Access-A-Ride-Program is operated the Access-A-Ride-Program that the Plaintiff argues accident. therefore they they are are unable deny responsibility responsibility for the the negligence negligence of of the the taxicab taxicab driver driver in this this case. case. unable to deny therefore Plaintiff requests requests that that Defendants Defendants motion motion should should be denied denied to engage engage in discovery discovery to ascertain ascertain details details Plaintiff about the Access-A-Ride Access-A-Ride-Program, what if if any representations representations the the moving moving Defendants Defendants may may have have made made to -Program, what about had over users of of that that program, program, and any any controls controls which which the moving moving defendants defendants may may have have had over the the driver driver of of the users him. hired him. which hired the company the sent to the company which plaintiff for the the plaintiff they sent which they vehicle which the vehicle prima facie judgment motion well established established that that "the "the proponent of a summary summary judgment motion must must make make a prima facie proponent of It is well showing of of entitlement entitlement to judgment matter of of law, tendering tendering sufficient sufficient evidence evidence to demonstrate demonstrate the judgment as a matter showing Alvarez v 993], citing absence of of any any material material issues issues of of fact" fact" (Ayotte (Ayotte v Gervasio, Gervasio, 881i NY2d NY2d 1062, 1062, 1063 [I [1993], citing Alvarez absence 2013]). Once Dept 2013]). AD3d 977 Prospect Hospital, Hospital, 68 NY2d NY2d 320,324 320, 324 [1986]; [1986]; Zapata Zapata v Buitriago, Buitriago, 107 AD3d 977 [2d Dept Once Prospect 2 [* 2] 2 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 04:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 INDEX NO. 522300/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2023 produce to produce motion to the motion opposing the party opposing the party shifts to the aa prima burden shifts the burden made, the been made, has been demonstration has facie demonstration prima facie which fact which of fact issues of material issues of material existence of the existence evidentiary establish the sufficient to establish form, sufficient admissible form, in admissible proof, in evidentiary proof, (1980]). NY2d 557 [1980]). New York, 49 NY2d ofNew City of require (Zuckerman v City action (Zuckerman the action of the trial of require a trial as doubt as any doubt there is any where there granted where be granted Summary judgment should not be which should remedy which drastic remedy judgment is a drastic Summary AD2d Nassau County, (Elzer v Nassau arguable (Elzer even arguable to existence of of a triable or where County, 111 III AD2d issue is even the issue where the issue or triable issue the existence to the 95 Inc., 95 News, Inc., New York Dept 1984]; Galeta 212, [2d Dept 649, [2d Dept Galeta v New York News, AD2d 649, Parker, 99 AD2d Steven v Parker, l 985]; Steven Dept 1985]; 212, [2d facts construe facts must construe Court must the Court motion, the judgment motion, AD2d [1st Dept 1983]). When summary judgment deciding a summary When deciding Dept 1983]). 325, [1st AD2d 325, Artie's & Artie's Dino & NA. vv Dino Bank NA. Midland Bank (Marine Midland party (Marine in non-moving party the non-moving favorable to the most favorable light most the light in the [2d 600 [2d AD2d 600 Rebecc hi v Whitemore Dept 1990]; Rebecchi Automatic Transmission Whitemore, , 172 172 AD2d AD2d 610 [2d Dept ion Co., 168 AD2d Automatic Transmiss the bear the plaintiff does liability, a plaintiff Dept 1991]). entitled to summary summary judgment issue of of liability, does not not bear judgment on the issue ]). To be entitled Dept 1991 New ofNew negligence (Rodrigue burden (Rodriguez z vv City City of comparative negligence own comparative her own of his or her absence of the absence establishing the of establishing burden of 2019]; Dept 2019]; 788 [2d AD3d 788 LLC, 176 AD3d Restaurant, LLC, York, 31 [2d Dept Scarsdale Restaurant, Higashi v M & R Scarsdale (2018]; Higashi 312 [2018]; NY3d 312 31 NY3d York, matter as aa matter established as liability is established defendant's liability Webb vv Scharf When a defendant's 2021]). When Dept 2021]). AD3d 1353 [4th Dept Scharf, 191 AD3d Webb such whether such and whether negligent and was negligent plaintiff was the plaintiff of law law before whether the determine whether still determine must still jury must the jury trial, the before trial, of each fault of ve fault the comparati injuries -- if negligence if so, the comparative of each plaintiffs injuries causing plaintiffs factor in causing substantial factor was a substantial negligence was 324). (Rodriguez at 324). jury (Rodriguez party the jury apportioned by the then apportioned party is then be shall be state shall this state operated in this used or operated vehicle used Under of a vehicle owner of every owner 288, every Law 288, Traffic Law Vehicle Traffic Under Vehicle or use or the use in the negligence in resulting from negligence property resulting or property liable person or injuries to person or injuries death or responsible for death and responsible liable and operating or operating using or any person by any operation of such such vehicle, such owner owner or otherwise, otherwise, by person using of such business of the business vehicle, in the operation of of such implied, of the same with express or implied, such owner. owner. permission, express the permission, with the the same of establising burden of facie burden prima facie their prima met their Here, establising not met have not Defendants have that Defendants finds that court finds the court Here, the the and the Roberts, and of Roberts, affidavit of the affidavit rely on the Defendants rely entitlement of law. Defendants matter of judgment as a matter summary judgment to summary entitlement to subject the subject of the form of Expansion form Record Expansion Title Record New Vehicle Title Document and a Vehicle Registration Document State Registration York State New York the on the vehicle on subject vehicle the subject of the owner of titled owner vehicle, that Green Green Line registered and titled the registered was the Taxi was Line Taxi reflecting that vehicle, reflecting However, Defendants. However, servant of agent or date of ofthe accident, and or servant of Defendants. employee, agent not an employee, was not Huang was that Huang and that the accident, date by red by which is administe program, which because of the administered Access-A-Ride program, the Access-A-Ride part of was part issue was vehicle at issue the vehicle because the 3 [* 3] 3 of 4 INDEX NO. 522300/2020 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/22/2023 04:02 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 45 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/22/2023 Defendants, there there is an issue issue of of fact fact as to whether whether or not not Defendants Defendants assumed assumed any any liability liability which which cannot cannot Defendants, determined based based solely solely on the the ownership ownership or operation operation of of the the vehicle. vehicle. Therefore, Therefore, more more information information is be determined needed to be ascertained ascertained as to the the role role of of Defendants Defendants in the the Access-A-Ride Access-A-Ride program, program, if if any, and the needed regulatory framework framework that that governs governs such such programs. programs. regulatory Accordingly, it is hereby, hereby, Accordingly, ORDERED, that that Defendants Defendants motion motion for summary summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's Plaintiffs complaint complaint is ORDERED, judgment dismissing denied without without prejudice with leave leave to renew renew after after discovery discovery is completed. completed ..· denied prejudice with This constitutes constitutes the the decision decision and and order order of of the the court. court. This Hon.lngr' Joseph J.S.C. Hon. lngncJ Ingnd Joseph JOSeph Hon. Supreme Supreme Court Court Justice Justice 4 [* 4] 4 of 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.